A bit of surprise on the vehicle registration

[idb]

You Bastard idb. Here I am stuck at work looking out the window and thinking how nice it be to take a cruise on the bike, and you're about to do it.

Not biking today Jantar - it's the opening day of the Autumn Festival

[Storm]

You Bastard idb. Here I am stuck at work looking out the window and thinking how nice it be to take a cruise on the bike, and you're about to do it.

Then again, you are spending work time surfing the net

[Wolf]

ACC levy for cars is cheaper because there are more of them and they use more fuel (which is taxed, part of which goes to ACC). ACC upped the levy on bikes to around twice that on cars because they were not gettting as much money out of us as they were from cars.

They are an insurance company - and an inferior one at that. They do not have to compete with other insurers because the govt has passed laws forcing us to pay them. Only once did they get told to partially compete with other insurers but that would have meant improving their service so they got all whiney-arsed and the govt reinstated their monopolistic protection.

I would happily pay a compulsory insurance (which is what ACC is) if I had the freedom of choice as to which company I paid. Because I do not have the choice and have had nothing but bad dealings with ACC, I am not happy.

If the government opened vehicle accident insurance up to the market in general, I would be one of the first finding another insurance company.

If ACC had to compete with the other comapnies, they (ACC) would be out of business within three months.

The ACC levy is a major bone of contention - the amount, the fact you pay it for every vehicle you own (and more from your income tax and more from fuel/road taxes and your employer pays some) and the fact that they will do everything they can to weasel out of paying anything if you have an accident - the govt set it so that we are requred to pay ACC but ACC is under no obligation to pay us.

We have no signed contract with these people and no recourse when they unilaterally decide to up their rates - it's not like we can change insurers if we feel they're not worth the premiums.

Sorry, my leftish libertarian (especially libertarian) views are coming to the fore. I'm politically disinclined to be forced by the government to pay for shit service over which I have no choice (Democracy? Yeah right - reaaaalllllly "democratic" when all political parties support the status quo.)

I would vote for any party that could prove they were going to totally abolish all state funding of ACC and replace it with laws requiring that we all get an equivalent level of insurance cover.

I bet we'd all find cheaper insurance and better service (as every Insurance company plying trade in NZ tries to undercut each other for our custom) and I'd bet the only company requesting "separate insurance for separate vehicles" would be ACC - everyone else would be insisting on separate insurance per licenced driver/rider.

[XTC]

I would vote for any party that could prove they were going to totally abolish all state funding of ACC and replace it with laws requiring that we all get an equivalent level of insurance cover.

I bet we'd all find cheaper insurance and better service (as every Insurance company plying trade in NZ tries to undercut each other for our custom) and I'd bet the only company requesting "separate insurance for separate vehicles" would be ACC - everyone else would be insisting on separate insurance per licenced driver/rider.

And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash... And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option

[MSTRS:Me]

And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash... And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option

I don't see a No-Claims Bonus from ACC anytime soon.

[Jeremy]

ACC is a service for a start. Its what pays you for having an accident.

ACC is a good service if you have a genuine work related accident or one that prevents you from working. Think of the levy you pay as compulsorary insurance.

Having seen kiwi drivers, I think they need every bit of aid they can get

I'd argue that it's not a service though because you can't refuse it. And since it's not goods and it's not a service then you can't legally charge GST on it.

[Wolf]

I'd argue that it's not a service though because you can't refuse it. And since it's not goods and it's not a service then you can't legally charge GST on it.

If the governemet cal "legally" force you to have comply with an insurance scheme over which you have no choice, with whom you have not signed anything remotely like a legal contract, and arbitrarily set how much funding (through levies and other forms of taxation) then I suppose they can "legally" charge GST on it as well - they are the government and make the laws so anything they do is (by definition) "legal" even if it would mean a prison term or major fines for any company or individual that tried the same thing. The government cannot "break the law" even when it is doing so. That's also how they can get away with motorcades that exceed the speed limit - they are "exempt" from the laws they inflict upon us.

[Clockwork]

Compulsory insurance never seemed that cheap in the UK and you could still get hit by an uninsured driver. What then?

[Wolf]

And motorcycle accident insurance would still be more than car accident insurance as we're more likely to sustain serious injury in a crash...

And if you've been accident-free as long as I have, you would find your premiums dropping dramatically. I guarantee that my premiums would be lower than your average newly ensured 25-year old (an age often deemed "mature and safe" by insurers - except for ACC who gouge you irrespective of age, lack of accidents or how many vehicles you can drive/ride at once.)

And ACC have to insure you no matter how many accidents you have where as a private company would put your premiums up or eventually refuse to insure you if you were a serial crasher.....
I say Acc is still the best option

Hmmmm, can't get insurance if you've had too many accidents.... That sounds like you've posted it on the wrong thread - there was another around here somewhere about "how can we ensure people don't drive like fuckwits?"
Seriously, I think that the knowledge that careless driving would have such consequences might go a long way towards making our roads safer. I suspect that is the case in other countries where they do have compulsory insurance. Any proof either way on this? Are these countries that have lower road deaths per capita also ones that have a free market and compulsory insurance?

Insurance companies probably would not turn you away if they knew that you had to have insurance to drive/ride - they'd probably just increase the premium. If said premium is too high, guess who's not going to be driving... until they turn 25 or whatever other criteria might qualify them for a lower premium.

If someone else caused the accident you are in, do you lose "no claims" bonuses or have premiums go up? Surely, if the accident were due to the actions of another, their insurance policy would be the one covering the medical bills - theirs would be the one losing bonuses and gaining penalties.

Great argument, XTC, but I disagree - I would much prefer a system whereby fuckwits could possibly find it difficult to get insurance (and might possibly be kept off the road) and where safe drivers/riders are rewarded.

I could also see it becoming packaged - "medical/death, third party, theft and fire and contents insurance" - you're covered for injury/death, your bike is covered for theft and fire, your helmet and leathers are covered and so is anyone you hit - all under one handy policy and one handy premium which costs less than paying for separate policies.

Also - do you realise how much money you would have in your hand to pay for insurance if ACC's greedy little paws were slapped away? Less income tax, cheaper petrol and cheaper yearly registration. And self employed people and companies would be even better off because they could pour the money they pay ACC for their employees into the company.

The only disadvantage I see is that forcing ACC to compete would suddenly cause all the dole queues to be flooded by a lot of ex-ACC staff with no employability at all - they would no longer be needed by ACC and they would be no use to anyone who has to compete for business...

[Wolf]

Compulsory insurance never seemed that cheap in the UK and you could still get hit by an uninsured driver. What then?

I don't know. What happens there if insurance is compulsory and the person is driving around without it? What happens in the UK if the person who hits you is in breach of the law in that respect? Surely that eventuality is covered.

Do they not get their arses kicked and forced to comply? Would not your insurer cover in the interim and take it out of the culpable person's insurer when they get one (at ruinous cost) or directly out of the culpable person?

There would obviously have to be things written into the law to cover what happens if you get clobbered by someone breaking the law.

Also, bicyclists would have to pay insurance too - so when they plough into your door at full-tit they are covered. They should also have third party insurance to cover the damage to your car's door...

[Ixion]

..
Also, bicyclists would have to pay insurance too - so when they plough into your door at full-tit they are covered. They should also have third party insurance to cover the damage to your car's door...

Pedestrians ? Skateboarders ? Horses ? Low flying chaffinches ?

[Wolf]

Pedestrians ? Skateboarders ? Horses ? Low flying chaffinches ?

They're all valid targets (except horses which are kinda like old-tech motorbikes).

[RDJ]

I don't know. What happens there if insurance is compulsory and the person is driving around without it? What happens in the UK if the person who hits you is in breach of the law in that respect? Surely that eventuality is covered.

Do they not get their arses kicked and forced to comply? Would not your insurer cover in the interim and take it out of the culpable person's insurer when they get one (at ruinous cost) or directly out of the culpable person?

Have lived, worked, ridden in such jurisdictions. What happens is the uninsured driver is fined (money goes to court) and you have to pick up your own expenses, and sue him/her for redress. He/she then either pays up, but only if you win and he/she has assets, or declares bankrupticy if your costs are high enough.

BTW the culpable person cannot get insurance after the fact i.e. if they hit you while uninsured.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it :-)

[Wolf]

The govt still collects the money from our registration etc but we get to choose which insurance company covers us and gets the boodle. A government body could be created to ensure that everyone is insured with a recognised company and that the policy meets certain criteria and that any reductions/increases in premiums are passed on to the appropriate policy holders while the loot gets passed on to the appropriate insurer.

As few people would be staying with ACC once there are better alternatives available, the staff that ACC will no longer need can be employed by the aforemention govt body - as they would only be cross-checking records, they should be able to manage it (with a few months of intensive training )

[Clockwork]

Now I think of it, in the UK your medical costs are met by the NHS (except for ambulances which are free to everyone except road accident victims, I believe). If you have full-comp insurance then your ride will get fixed and the insurance co will have to chase up said miscreant but if you're third party only, tough titties.

BUT "theoretiaclly" the ACC shouldn't be trying to take a profit margin for sharholders therefore they should always be able to out perform a private company. Private insurers would almost certainly be overseas owned and that means the profits would be leaving the country. At least this way the money stays entirely in NZ.

I agree, ACC could/should follow a more industry standard model, but over all I'd rather have it than compulsory private insurance.